The Wrong Argument About Readiness

By William A. Owens

Published: September 1, 2000

As a 30-year veteran of the United States military, I'm glad that national security has become an issue in the presidential campaign. But I'm disheartened that the debate as it has played out so far has been far more partisan than enlightening.

Al Gore has said, ''Our military is the strongest and the best in the entire world.''

But in a speech on Wednesday, Dick Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said the Clinton administration had neglected national defense and was ''running down'' the military.

In his speech at the Republican convention, Mr. Bush charged that two of the Army's 10 divisions were not ready for a major war.

This sort of interchange does not begin to address the important defense challenges facing the nation. It exaggerates problems that don't threaten our national security while ignoring problems that do threaten it.

Let's examine the issues.

Lack of military readiness. Mr. Bush's charge that two army divisions were unprepared for war sounds serious, but is not particularly relevant. Every active duty force, every national guard and reserve unit is currently judged ready for combat according to a list of standards that are in many ways more appropriate for cold war missions and less appropriate for our troops that served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda. Troops need to be less like a tightly packed, hierarchical combat force, and more like a sophisticated, flexible police force.

Moreover, the list of standards fails to include equipment that may be especially important in today's missions, like high technology information systems, defenses against chemical and biological weapons and adequate numbers of precision weapons.

The Clinton administration has spent too much money to assure that our forces can, by and large, meet this outdated standard -- even troops who would not, in any circumstance, be used for months into a conflict. Certainly, the fact that all units don't meet every standard means far less than politicians may imply, and our current level of readiness is certainly not a significant threat to our national security.

Too many missions around the world. True, our forces are deployed too broadly, in dozens of places around the globe. And some units are overextended. But the grand mass of the American military is not deployed. The percentage of troops overseas is small. With management, both people and money could be moved from other parts of the services into overextended units.

Low morale and poor recruitment. We need to do more for our troops, including increasing their pay. And it is difficult to recruit and retain people, especially in a hot economy. But over the last decade, the military has been able to maintain its fighting force, and in the coming year, the services are expected to meet their recruiting goals. Moreover, today's morale, while low and needing attention, is not the kind of issue that is likely to bring down our national security. The situation today is not the post-Vietnam military that many decry.

A failure to look ahead. So what issue should our presidential candidates be concerned with? The military's ability to meet challenges five to 15 years from now.

The Clinton administration, to avoid charges of military unreadiness, made sure that today, every division is combat-ready. But that required billions of dollars and precluded buying enough equipment -- ships, tanks, tents -- for the future. The military procurement budget has been cut by about 60 percent since the end of the cold war (the overall budget is down by only 35 percent).

Some of the results can be seen today. The average age of vehicles is much older than in the past. Indeed, some Marine and Army helicopters are older than the pilots who fly them. Because it takes many years to replace equipment, in 10 to 15 years, there could be 30 percent fewer airplanes, ships, tanks and trucks. The ones that do exist will be older -- and harder to keep running -- than the ones today.

Moreover, the military has been unable to invest in America's information technology. For instance, it has not been able to buy enough battlefield sensors and communications, which would allow commanders to have information about an entire battlefield.

Both the White House and the Republican Congress are responsible for this situation. Our presidential candidates should address it. And the next administration and Congress should fix it.

William A. Owens was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1994 to 1996. He is the author of ''Lifting the Fog of War.''